Assuming that the Appeals Court wasn’t in front of multiple judges.Which it was, of course, as is the normal nature of appeals.
Unanimously affirmed.
JULIA C. KELETY
Presiding Judge, Appellate Division
AARON H. KATZ
Judge, Appellate Division
DAVID M. RUBIN
Judge, Appellate Division
(previerw still broken)
happy to live in a country where only meat people get to enjoy constitutional protections and rights. You know, like it was before 1886’s SCOTUS disaster Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail RoadWait until anon coward discovers that even boats enjoyed rights under the law at least as far back as the early 1800s. United aStates v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. 103 (1801); Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804). Boats are effective stand-ins for interest of their owners. (preweiv still borkne on new platform)
[jamming is legal] as long as the jammers only jam data and not voice.I would be interested to see a cite (U.S. statute or CFR) for this proposition.
what does “non-party” mean?A person not a part of the litigation is a non-party. Think of a typical suit, A v. B. A is the plaintiff, B is the defendant. The parties are A and B. A and/or B could be several people each. You might have Coyote v. Acme Supplies and Warner Dynamite Co, alleging strict liability for defective explosives; in that case A is Coyote and B is Acme and Warner. When the judge enjoins the railroad company from delivering the explosives, the railroad is a non-party. Generally that injunction is going to be subject to challenge, if it is ever served on the railroad. At the very least, the railroad has a right to be heard, or possibly even be made a party, before it can be barred from carrying goods according to its tariff or required to take up the siding at the Warner plant. Here, the ISPs are not parties, and are ordered to Do Stuff. They have not had notice of the action or the opportunity to be heard, and so have been denied due process. Indeed, having not been served, they are probably not subject to the jurisdiction of the court at all.
her requests were flawed in the first place, i.e. the might well be frivilous.I handle public records request problems, and am having a hard time imagining how a request might be, in your terms, ``frivilous''. Difficult to handle, sure. Unreasonably broad, perhaps, but you can identify the problem and request payment up front to handle that problem. Motivated by hostility, sure, especially if you want the receipts from the mayor's ``Grey Goose'' spree [Dennis Mulder, Deltona, reported Sep. 2010]; I cannot imagine a motive for publishing that information with which officials would agree. But frivolous, no, I just do not see it. (preview still broken)
Suing probably isn’t best response, but I don’t know what practical alternatives there are.The best alternative is to produce the records. If the volume is unreasonable or requires excessive time, you can charge for it; in Florida you can even collect a reasonable estimate of it up front. Speaking as someone who has been sued [30 Med.L.Rptr. 1300] for seeking public records, I can tell you that it is generally not a good plan. It may in fact be the worst plan.
It appears that village atty Christopher R. Smith did not engage counsel to assist with this suit. He filed it pro se without listing his state bar number. He would have probably saved some money on filing fees if he had talked to an attorney before filing. Imagine also the humiliation for the Village of Mt Pleasant from having Christopher Smith publicly seen as their representative. In the unlikely event that the suit survives initial motion practice, they are going to have to come up with evidence showing either that they met in secret to plot term extensions, or that their atty lied about their meeting and planning for term extensions. That would not go well in Florida, due to public records and public meetings laws. Not sure how it will go in Wisconsin, but the best case scenario is that they could claim to legally meet in secret to plot how the village leaders could stay in power longer. Given that my knowledge of Wisconsin law is limited to knowing how to spell the name of the state, I cannot say whether the village atty has now developed an incurable conflict of interest. (perview still borken)
Disney paid significant amount of money for both mickey mouseWell, no, Disney pretty much started with the mouse. Disney paid significant money to purchase congress critters who enacted the copyright term extension act.
this site is broken on mobile devices.If it is any consolation, important features like preview and flag are also broken on standard desktop computers.
and people don’t flag itAs an added annoyance, on the new site, flag does not work right. Neither does preview. I suspect some very stable genius decided it would be clever to require javascript for things to work.
Russian word for truth is “Pravda”There used to be two main papers in Soviet-era Russia: 1. Pravda, means ``truth'' 2. Izvestia, means ``news'' It was frequently observed that there was not much truth in Izvestia, and not much news in Pravda. (preview still broken)
The only two features that Techdirt lacks over Twitter or Facebook are the size and the lack of structureAlso, I think their feedback, such as ``like'', is said to work. This is admittedly hearsay. I have first-hand knowledge that what we have here on Techdirt (flag, insightful, funny) are broken, at least using Firefox w/o javascript. Come to think of it, preview is also still broken.
I’ll flag this one tooIt appears that ``flag'' and ``preview'' are still not working correctly. It is patent that there is no need for Javascript, at least not since the 1990s when we got constructs that looked like * [flag] * < form method=POST action="proc_post.sh"> * I would not mind seeing the Techdirt platform catch up to the 1990s.
Keep the “election was stolen” headlines active despite all the factual and logical reasons that obviously wasn’t the case, and they might claw back more power.Not so much in Florida. There are three branches of government, all run by the same political party, and pretty much along party lines. Even the judiciary, as you rise up the levels, tends to be fairly strongly ``business-oriented'', toward the same businesses that fund the party which has been in power for the past couple of decades. (preview still broken)
[ did he say "cluster" ]The correct term is ``Hungarian Group Entertainment'', sometimes abbreviated HGE. (term may be used to refer to updates that break preview on websites)
Kim Potter is a decent person. She’s in jail.Potter is a person who endangered the public by attempting to disable the driver of a moving car. She also managed to kill the driver through what she describes in terms that constitute gross negligence. Had she but tazed him, disabling him, then death was still a foreseeable result of disabling him as he drove the car.
Chauvin was not following his training when he put his knee on Floyd’s neck, but Kueng was.Assuming for argument that Kueng was trained to stand by and watch as murder occurs, then his training has turned him at least useless and may have made him a menace to society.
There is a process for a warrant and training on how to serve that warrant. If they are all followed how do you justify throwing cops in jail?Breonna Taylor. Bounkham Phonesavanh. (preview still broken)
Kim Potter is in jail because she made a split-second decision and got it wrong.Well, actually, she is in because she created a dangerous situation and then did the worst possible thing therein. Shooting a driver, whether with taser, beanbag, or bullet, is going to create a great risk of death or serious injury because of the uncontrolled moving car. Her problem is that the intent was bad. She intended to shoot a driver with a taser, incapacitating him while he operated a moving vehicle. What possible good outcome is there to be had in such a case? This appears to be at least depraved indifference, even if not premeditation. (preview still broken)
Alabama has a long, proud history of resisting uppity persons of color and their protests. See, e.g., Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87 (1965); Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).